Posts

Irony by Perjury Adds Insult to Injury: from Lender Robo-signing to Foreclosed Homeowners Begging for Scraps from the National Mortgage Fraud Settlement

Homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure may need to commit perjury to get restitution payments though the settlement.  That would be the deepest kind of insult on injury.

In the last blog, I explained what a homeowner who lost a home to foreclosure (from 2008 through 2011) will have to assert to get his or her small share of that $1.5 billion pot of money:

1. “Borrower lost the home to foreclosure while attempting to save the home through a loan modification or other loss mitigation effort.”

2. “Servicer errors or misconduct in the loss mitigation or foreclosure processes affected the borrower’s ability to save the home.”

While these may seem superficially sensible, in practice they are very troublesome, especially because the statements must be made under penalty of perjury.

As to the first statement, what “other loss mitigation effort” “to save the home” will be considered sufficient to be able to make that statement? Must that effort have continued right up to the foreclosure date to be considered to have “lost the home to foreclosure while attempting to save the home”?  How is the former homeowner to know whether he or she can make this statement truthfully?

The second statement is even more of a problem. How can the former homeowner know whether “servicer errors or misconduct in the loss mitigation or foreclosure processes affected the borrower’s ability to save the home”? The robo-signing of foreclosure documents—mortgage servicers’ false assertions made under oath by the thousands—were only discovered through borrowers’ attorneys’  aggressive discovery efforts during litigation. In this nationwide settlement, the five banks are not admitting ANY wrongdoing or liability. (For example, see the non-admission clause in the Federal Release, Exhibit F in the Wells Fargo settlement documents, paragraph F on page F-11, which is page 232 of the 315 pages of those documents.) Presumably the banks are not now going to start admitting wrongdoing on a case-by-case basis so that borrowers can answer this statement accurately.

So to receive the restitution payment a former homeowner will have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury affirming the truthfulness of one statement that is so vague as to be in many situations meaningless, and the truthfulness of a second statement the accuracy of which is unknowable.

There may yet be a partial solution, to at least the first required statement about the extent of borrowers’ efforts to save the home. The claim form to be sent out to the borrowers’ by the yet-undesignated Settlement Administrator may give enough guidance about this. A tentative 3-page claim form has been prepared by the Monitoring Committee for possible use by the Settlement Administrator. It may create a bright line between qualifying and non-qualifying borrower efforts. We don’t know yet because although this tentative claim form is being made available for companies applying to become the Settlement Administrator (the application deadline is April 30, 2012), it is not being released to anyone else.

But even so, I see no conceivable way that the second statement about “servicer error or misconduct” can be made known to the borrowers in order for them to be able to assert that under penalty of perjury. The banks are not going to admit to wrongdoing as to two million or so homeowners in direct contradiction of their non-liability assertion in the settlement documents.

So here’s the moral irony:

1. The banks were accused by the federal government and 49 states of a long list of allegations of serious wrongdoing which take 10 pages to detail (see pages F-2 through F-11 of the Federal Release in the settlement documents referred to above). These allegations include fraud and misrepresentations of numerous kinds, including in the form of many thousands of perjured documents submitted to courts over an extended period of time. The banks do not admit to any of these allegations or to any resulting liability.

2. Now the banks have negotiated with the governmental entities to pay restitution for their extensive alleged wrongdoing, and in particular to homeowners who’ve already lost their homes to foreclosure. But as a precondition to receiving that restitution, these former homeowners will in many cases be faced with a moral dilemma: can they sign a statement under penalty of perjury asserting that their “ability to save the home” was affected by “servicer errors or misconduct” when they do not know whether such errors or misconduct happened as to their mortgage, and if so whether it had any effect on their “ability to save the home.”

3. Because the “Monitoring Committee” has made clear that the “Settlement Administrator” will not be required to get documentation from borrowers about their statements on the claim forms, borrowers are seemingly being encouraged to make statements that will in many cases be vague and factually unverifiable, while asserting the truthfulness and accuracy of those statements under penalty of perjury.

4. The banks, having admitted to no fault, having paid their modest penalty, and having foisted this moral conundrum onto the foreclosed borrowers, can now wash their hands entirely of the matter. They no longer care how each borrower handles the matter since the pot of money does not change. The money just shifts out of the hands of the perhaps more carefully honest borrowers who disqualify themselves by admitting that they cannot swear to the fact that they lost the property because of lender wrongdoing.

5. Thus this settlement process has lowered borrowers—through circumstances almost entirely outside their control—to the moral level of the original robo-signers: “just sign here and don’t worry what the statements say or what they mean.”

/by

Update on the Cash Distribution to Foreclosed Homeowners from the National Mortgage Fraud Settlement

What qualifies you to receive the $1,500 to $2,000 restitution payment for losing your home to foreclosure? More clues have just become available.

 The “largest consumer financial protection settlement in US history,” the $26 billion national mortgage fraud settlement, was announced with great fanfare in February. More than a month later, on March 12, 2012, the details of the settlement were finalized and hundreds of pages of settlement documents were signed and finally made public. But all those pages still did not at all make clear how a person whose home was foreclosed will qualify to get the money.

To remind you about this, most of the money in this settlement is earmarked for current homeowners for loan modifications, refinances, and other ways to help them hold on to their homes. But just shy of $1.5 billion is for those who’ve already had their homes foreclosed. That’s the subject of this blog.

This part of the settlement applies only to:

  • foreclosures that occurred during the calendar years 2008 through 2011
  • mortgages held or serviced by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ally Financial/GMAC and CitiGroup and their affiliates
  • mortgages on which at least 3 payments were made and the property “was not abandoned by the homeowner or condemned prior to the time of the foreclosure sale” 
  • “owner-occupied, one-to-four unit” residence in all states except for Oklahoma, which is not participating in this settlement

Find out if your mortgage is included in this settlement pool by going to the special settlement website for the banks’ toll-free phone numbers and websites.

But once you are in this pool, what further conditions, must you meet to get the money? The initial settlement documents last month surprisingly did not make this clear. They just stated that “cash payments” from the $1.5 billion fund would be provided to borrowers whose homes were foreclosed during the 2008 through 2011 period and “who submit claims arising from the Covered Conduct [the alleged mortgage servicing and foreclosure fraud]; and who otherwise meet criteria set forth by the State members of the Monitoring Committee.”

So if you are a foreclosed homeowner, do you only get the settlement money if you can show your foreclosure happened because of your bank’s alleged misconduct? Has the “Monitoring Committee” provided any more information on this or any other criteria to be used?

Two and a half months after the February 9 announcement of the settlement, there is still no definite answer to the first question. And the second question? The 14 state attorneys general on the “Monitoring Committee” has curiously not directly told foreclosed homeowners anything more about the qualifying criteria, apparently because that will be the job of the “Settlement Administrator.” But in the last few days this Committee HAS indirectly provided some important clues about the criteria through its release of two documents:

The RFP states the following:

Borrower Certifications:

In addition to the baseline eligibility criteria listed above, eligible claimants must also complete a claim certification form in which they certify under penalty of perjury to the following:

  • Borrower lost the home to foreclosure while attempting to save the home through a loan modification or other loss mitigation effort.
  • Servicer errors or misconduct in the loss mitigation or foreclosure processes affected the borrower’s ability to save the home.

But those two requirements are not clear either. What would be considered an adequate attempt by the borrower to save the home? For example, if you simply made a number of unsuccessful attempts to get the lender to respond to phone messages—would that be enough? And how are you going to know when a bank’s misconduct “affected” your ability to save the home when the bank is providing you that kind of information and not admitting anything? Indeed, in this entire multi-billion dollar settlement the banks are not admitting to a single act of misconduct!

The First Addendum—released just a few days ago on April 20—gives some further clues, albeit maddening ones. Here is a pertinent question from the Addendum and the Monitoring Committee’s response:

Question #12: Will the Settlement Administrator be required to request and review documentary proof from claimants who submit claim certification forms in order to determine eligibility?

Answer: No. Other than reviewing the claim certification forms to ensure that claimants properly made the required certifications, the Settlement Administrator will not be required to request and review documentary proof from claimants in order to determine eligibility.

So to receive the settlement money, it looks like you as a foreclosed homeowner will have to sign a claim form stating under penalty of perjury that the foreclosure occurred in spite of you efforts to save the home, AND the foreclosure occurred because of the bank’s “errors or misconduct”—which you may well have no way of knowing about. But, it looks like you will not need to provide any documentation to verify your statements. It is unclear whether information will be provided by your bank to the Settlement Administrator which might contradict your statements—for example asserting that you did not attempt to contact the bank to try to save the home. And if that occurs, there’s also no indication how such disputed facts would be resolved.

Stay tuned here, and on the settlement website, for answers to these continuing ambiguities.

/by

Dealing with Accusations of Business Fraud through Bankruptcy

When a small business fails, its owner or employer is sometimes accused of causing or hastening that failure through fraud or intentional bad behavior. If that person is already considering filing a bankruptcy to deal with the financial fallout of the closing of the business, how are those accusations going to be handled in that bankruptcy case?

A bankruptcy filed after the failure of a business tends to be more acrimonious than in a straight consumer bankruptcy because:

• The relationship between debtor and creditor is often more personal and intense—such as between business partners, between a key employee and the owner, or between the owner and investors who were friends or a relatives. So the failure is taken more personally, and the person who lost money is more likely to feel a sense of betrayal.

• The business context often provides many all-too-convenient opportunities for the debtor to bend the rules or behave underhandedly, especially “when desperate times call for desperate measures.” On the other hand, actions that the debtor took in good faith at the time may simply look inappropriate in hindsight.

• There is often more money at stake, money which these kinds of creditors can less afford to lose than a conventional commercial creditor. So it’s harder for these creditors to just write it off and walk away.

So if you have been accused by a former business partner, investor, or similar business creditor of some sort of business fraud, or fear that you will be so accused, does this mean that you should avoid filing bankruptcy? Of course you will want to discuss a serious matter like this very thoroughly with your bankruptcy attorney, perhaps in consultation with your business or litigation attorney if those accusations have already ripened into a lawsuit against you. But, interestingly, there are a set of practical reasons why those kinds of accusations often go away, or at least are reduced in seriousness, when you file a bankruptcy.

1. Automatic stay

The filing of your bankruptcy case stops, at least temporarily, any litigation against you already in process, and prevents a lawsuit from being filed or any other collection action to be taken against you. This pause in the action at least gives your adversary the opportunity to consider whether continuing to pursue you would truly be worthwhile.

2. More difficult to make a case against you

That pause is valuable because your bankruptcy filing changes the rules of the game, mostly in your favor. When you file your bankruptcy, you make it harder for your creditor to win against you. It’s no longer enough to merely establish that you owe him or her some money. Once you file bankruptcy, for the debt not to be discharged the creditor must also establish that the debt is based on one of a relatively narrow set of facts involving fraud, misrepresentation, embezzlement or theft, fraud in a fiduciary capacity, or an intentional and malicious injury to person or property.

3. Proof of your true finances

The documents you are required to file under oath in your bankruptcy case should show your angry creditor, and maybe more importantly his attorney, that even if the case against you was successful, you have no pot of gold with which to pay a judgment. Most sensible people do not like “spending good money after bad”—paying thousands of dollars to their attorney only to get a judgment that could never be collected, or only so slowly that the additional expense would simply not be worth all the risk and effort.

So, notwithstanding the tendency for small business-spawned bankruptcies to be more contentious, filing such a bankruptcy can create decisive advantages for you if you are being pursued for an alleged business fraud—you decrease your opponent’s odds of winning and increase his costs of pursuing you.

 

/by

The National Mortgage Settlement’s Actual Terms Finally Released

The settlement documents of the deal that was announced more than a month ago were finally completed and filed at court on Monday, March 12. They catalog page after page of serious wrongdoing by the banks in their servicing of mortgages and processing of foreclosures.

In my last blog I said that the settlement would be finalized and made public “any day now.” It actually happened only hours later.

The settlement documents consist of hundreds of pages, but I’ll make it easy for you.

One document talks about the past, the wrongdoing by the banks. That’s the Complaint. The plaintiffs are the United States, 49 of the 50 states (all except Oklahoma), and the District of Columbia; the defendants are five of the biggest banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Ally/GMAC, and their subsidiaries, totaling 18 named defendants. This 99-page Complaint is the subject of today’s blog.

The rest of the documents—one Consent Judgment for each of the five banks—talk about the agreed penalties for the banks’ past wrongdoing, but mostly focus on the future: 1) where the money from those penalties is going to be spent; and 2) the new standards by which these banks are now required to service mortgages and process foreclosures.  In my next blog I’ll talk about these penalties, and how they are supposed to help homeowners who have been hurt by the banks.

To say that the Complaint is 99 pages long is misleading, because it actually ends on page 48, followed by signature pages for each of the 51 plaintiffs. And In fact the document doesn’t really get to the point until the Factual Allegation starting on page 21. The detailed litany of bank misconduct goes on relentlessly for the following 16 pages, totaling 55 paragraphs of allegations, some including many subparagraphs of even more detailed allegations. It’s difficult to do justice to all this in one blog. To try to show both the breadth and depth of the alleged misconduct, I’ll give you most of the Complaint’s outline of the types of wrongdoing, and one or two examples quoted under each one:

A. The Banks’ Servicing Misconduct

            1. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Servicing Processes

Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements; imposing force-placed insurance without properly notifying the borrowers and when borrowers already had adequate coverage.

             2. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, & Unlawful Loan Modification and Loss Mitigation Processes

Providing false or misleading information to consumers while initiating foreclosures where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative offered by the Bank; miscalculating borrowers’ eligibility for loan modification programs and improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers.

   3. Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

Preparing, executing, notarizing or presenting false and misleading documents, filing false and misleading documents with courts and government agencies, or otherwise using false or misleading documents as part of the foreclosure process (including, but not limited to affidavits, declarations, certifications, substitutions of trustees, and assignments).

 B. The Banks’ Origination Misconduct

   1. Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

In the course of their origination of mortgage loans in the Plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. Among other consequences, these practices caused borrowers in the Plaintiff States to enter into unaffordable mortgage loans that led to increased foreclosures in the States.

 C. The Banks’ Bankruptcy-Related Misconduct

Making representations that were inaccurate, misleading, false, or for which the Banks, at the time, did not have a reasonable basis to make, including without limitation representations contained in proofs of claim under 11 U.S.C. § 501, motions for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, or other documents.

 D. Violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

The Banks foreclosed upon mortgages without required court orders on properties that were owned by service members who, at the time, were on military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA.

 The 55 paragraphs of wrongdoing resulted in these five banks agreeing to pay about $26 billion in a combination of cash and other forms, to the states and to individual homeowners. As I said, I’ll tell you how this is supposed to be divvied up in my next blog.

/by

Business Disputes that Get Dragged Into Your Bankruptcy Case

Creditors can challenge your ability to legally discharge your debts in a bankruptcy case. These challenges happen more so in bankruptcy cases filed to clean up after the close of a business. Avoid the creditor challenges for a cleaner case.

Bankruptcies filed after the close of a business seem to attract more creditor challenges to the discharge of debts for a number of reasons:

1. The amounts at issue tend to be larger, making litigation more tempting for the creditor.

2. Certain debtor-creditor relationships can become deeply personal, and so when things go badly, can turn very antagonistic. So in debts between ex-business-partners, or between a business owner and his or her financial supporter or investor, or the buyer and the seller of a business, the aggrieved creditor is more reluctant to let the debt be discharged without a fight.

3. For business owners trying to keep their businesses afloat, desperate times call for desperate measures, so they edge into risky behavior that exposes them to future challenge in bankruptcy court.

4. In these kinds of close creditor-debtor relationships, the creditor often knows something about the debtor’s risky behavior, making it more likely to be raised later in court.

On the other hand, when former business owners considering bankruptcy hear that any creditor can raise challenges to the discharge of its debt, they often feel that will inevitably happen in their case. But such challenges are in fact relatively rare, for the following legal and practical reasons:

1. The legal grounds under which challenges to discharge can be raised are relatively narrow. Instead of just proving the existence of a valid debt—as in a conventional lawsuit to collect on a debt—the creditor has to prove that the debtor engaged in behavior such as fraud in incurring the debt, embezzlement, larceny, fraud as a fiduciary, or intentional and malicious injury to property.

2. In bankruptcy, the debtor files under oath a set of extensive documents about his or her finances, and is also subject to questioning by the creditors about those documents and about anything else relevant to the discharge of the debts. When these documents, along with any questioning, reveal that the debtor genuinely has nothing worth chasing—as is most often the case—this tends to cool the anger of most creditors. Only the most motivated of creditors will be willing to throw the proverbial good money after bad in the hopes of getting nothing more than a questionably collectible judgment.  

So in a closed-business bankruptcy case we have these two opposing tendencies—more likely to have challenges to the discharge of significant debts, especially by certain kinds of closely related creditors, but these challenges are still relatively rare because of the narrow legal grounds for them and the financial practicalities involved. It is impossible to predict perfectly something that is largely outside of the control of the debtor. But a good bankruptcy attorney will give you good counsel about this, prepare your paperwork in the best possible way to counter any such challenges, and may even be able to defuse them before they are raised. A dischargeability challenge is very expensive to defend and can turn a relatively simple bankruptcy case into a very involved one. So avoiding one if possible, or positioning well for it if it is raised, are important reasons to have an experienced and conscientious bankruptcy attorney in your corner. That’s all the more true if you have reason to believe that any of your business creditors are in fact considering raising such a challenge.

/by

Will You Benefit from the Just-Completed $26 Billion Home Mortgage and Foreclosure Settlement?

The long-awaited joint federal-state settlement with the major banks for their alleged fraudulent documentation and processing of mortgages and foreclosures was announced on Thursday, February 9. Will it help you, and if so, how?

I interrupt my ongoing series on small business bankruptcy to answer your most immediate questions about this huge settlement.

1. Who is included in this settlement?

  • Only five big banks are currently signed on: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ally Financial and Citigroup.  Only mortgages owned and held by them are directly affected.  Negotiations continue with nine other mortgage servicers, which if successful could bring the total amount of money involved to $30 billion.
  • 49 states joined in the settlement; only Oklahoma did not.
  • Mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—consisting of the majority of U.S. mortgages—are NOT covered.

2. What does this settlement resolve and what is open for further negotiation and litigation? In other words, what liabilities are the banks escaping from for their $26 billion?

  • The claims against the banks that are released in this settlement are limited to mortgage servicing and foreclosure claims. Claims for a variety of other alleged wrongdoing are not covered and so remain open to being pursued by the federal and state regulators, investors, and homeowners. Claims that are NOT covered include those related to the securitization of mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the financial crisis, and those against or involving MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems).
  • Individuals’ rights to bring their own lawsuits or to be part of a class action against any banks for any claims are not affected by this settlement.
  • The settlement does not limit any potential criminal liability for any individuals or financial institutions; it provides no immunity from prosecution whatsoever.

3. How does the settlement help you if your mortgage is held by one of these five banks?

  • If you need a mortgage loan modification, these servicers will (finally!) be required to offer principal reductions, for first and second mortgages, to a value of up to $17 billion. This is where the bulk of the settlement funds are earmarked.
  • If you’re current on your mortgage but your home is worth less than the mortgage, $3 billion of the settlement is to provide refinancing relief.
  • If your home has already been foreclosed, $1.5 billion will be paid out by the banks as a penalty against them–around  $2,000 per homeowner–without you needing to show any damages or releasing any claims against the bank.

4. Where do you go for more information and to find out whether you will be helped in any of these ways?

  • Go to the new settlement website for current and upcoming information about it:

http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com

/by

Keeping It Simple in a Closed-Business Chapter 7 Case

Using a Chapter 7 case to clean up after closing down your business will be easy or not depending largely on three factors: business assets, taxes, and other nondischargeable debts. These three will usually also determine if you should be in a Chapter 7 case or instead in a Chapter 13 one.

Once you’ve closed down your business and decided to file bankruptcy, you may have a strong gut feeling about choosing the Chapter 7 option. After what you’ve been through, you just want a fresh, clean start. If you’d put years of blood, sweat and tears into trying to get your business to succeed, and then finally had to throw in the towel after resisting doing so for so long, at this point you likely feel like it’s time to put all that behind you. The last thing you likely feel like doing is dragging things along for the next three to five years that a Chapter 13 case usually lasts.

And you may well be ABLE to file a Chapter 7 case. The “means test” largely determines whether, given your income and expenses, you can file a Chapter 7 case. In my last blog I told you that you can avoid the “means test” altogether if more than half of your debts are business debts instead of consumer debts. But even if that does not apply to you, the “means test” will still not likely stand in your way, especially if you just closed down your business recently. That’s because the period of income that counts for the “means test” is the six full calendar months before your bankruptcy case is filed. An about-to-fail business usually isn’t generating much income.

But usually the question is not whether you are able to file a Chapter 7 case, but rather whether doing so is really better for you than a Chapter 13 one.

Many factors can come into play, but the following three seem to come up all the time:

1. Business assets: There are two kinds of Chapter 7 cases: “no asset” and “asset.” In the former, the Chapter 7 trustee decides—usually quite quickly—that none of your assets (which technically belong to your “bankruptcy estate”) are worth taking and selling to pay creditors. Either all those assets are “exempt” from the reach of the trustee, or are not worth enough for the trustee to bother. But with a recently closed business, there are more likely to be assets that are not exempt and are worth the trustee’s effort to collect and liquidate. If you have such collectable business assets, you will want to discuss with your attorney where the anticipated proceeds of the Chapter 7 trustee’s sale of those assets would likely go, and whether that is in your best interest compared to what would happen to those assets in a Chapter 13 case.

2. Taxes: Just about every closed-business bankruptcy seems to involve tax debts. Although some taxes CAN be discharged in a Chapter 7 case, most cannot. Chapter 13 is often a better way to deal with taxes. This will depend on the precise kind of tax—personal income tax, employee withholding tax, sales tax—and on a series of other factors such as when the tax became due, whether a tax return was filed, if so when, and whether a tax lien was recorded.

3. Other nondischargeable debts: Bankruptcies involving former businesses seem to get more than the usual amount of creditor challenges to the discharge of debts. These challenges are usually based on allegations that the business owner acted in some fraudulent fashion against a former business partner, a business landlord. or some other major creditor.  Such litigation, often started or at least threatened before the bankruptcy is filed, can turn an otherwise simple bankruptcy case into a long and expensive battle, regardless whether your case is a Chapter 7 or 13. But depending on the nature of the anticipated allegations, Chapter 13 may give you certain legal and tactical advantages over Chapter 7.

I’ll expand on these three one at a time in my next three blogs. From them you will be able to get a much better idea whether your business bankruptcy case should be in a Chapter 7 or not, and if so whether it will likely be relatively simple or not.

/by

Massive Mortgage Settlement Finally Coming Together

The multibillion-dollar deal, more than a year in negotiations between the biggest home mortgage servicers on one side and the states’ attorneys general and federal agencies on the other, may be just days from being finished. The deadline for each state’s attorney general to decide whether to sign was Friday, February 3, but that has now been extended to Monday, February 6.

This settlement is to resolve allegations about an extensive series of foreclosure and mortgage loan-servicing abuses that came to light in the summer and fall of 2010. State and federal officials have since then been negotiating an agreement with five major mortgage servicers. It would provide some very specific mortgage relief to homeowners and would establish strict requirements for how banks could conduct foreclosures. The negotiations have gone back and forth, with various proposals being floated, resulting in very public displays of protest by various bank-friendly sets of attorneys general on one hand and by other more aggressive attorneys general on the other. A settlement now looks imminent, in large part because of the timing of the current election cycle, as well as the dire need for progress on the never-ending home foreclosure front —and because this has dragged on for so long.

Since this story is evolving every day, I’m going to provide you with a few recent news articles about it, introducing each one to help you decide if you want to look at it.

This USA Today article gets right to what we all care about, “Who benefits from possible $25B mortgage settlement?”  It’s actually a good summary—in a Q&A format—of the likely terms of the settlement and its effects on homeowners and the housing market. Some of the questions include: “How might the $25B be spent?” “Who will get [mortgage] principal reductions?” “How tough are the potential settlement terms on the banks?

“Mortgage deal would give states enforcement clout” from Reuters addresses the concern “that banks have not adequately followed through on prior settlements, a concern that has pushed government negotiators to establish more forceful enforcement mechanisms in this deal than have been used in the past.” So this deal gives the states, along with a separate “monitoring committee,” the power to go to court to enforce the terms of the settlement and to ask for penalties of up to $5 million per violation.

And if you want to get a taste of how complicated these negotiations have been on the technical side (without even accounting for the intense political pressures), here is a letter dated January 27, 2012 from the Nevada Attorney General to the officials who have been spearheading the settlement. In the letter, she asks for written answers to 38 questions so that her state can decide whether or not to sign on to the settlement. It’ll make your head spin. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

/by

In a Chapter 7 Case, “The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself”

There’s a lot you can do to help make your “straight bankruptcy” Chapter 7 case a straightforward one, but one thing you can’t control is your creditors’ reactions to it. You know that creditors can sometimes try to prevent you from discharging (legally writing off) your debts, so naturally you worry about this. Here’s why you shouldn’t worry.

Let’s first be clear that I’m not talking here about the kinds of debts that simply can’t be discharged, and don’t require any creditor objection for that to happen—for example, back child and spousal support, many taxes, and criminal fines. Instead I’m talking about the right of any creditor to object to the discharge of its debt, under certain limited circumstances.

You might figure that if your creditors have ANY chance to object to the discharge of their debts, it would jump at the chance to do so. Or at least enough of them would object to cause you trouble. But that is NOT what happens. Most Chapter 7 cases go through with NO creditor objections at all. Well, why not?

1. The legal grounds for creditors’ objections are quite narrow. They need to have evidence that the debt was incurred through your fraud or misrepresentation, arose out of a theft or embezzlement, as a result of your intentional injury to a person’s body or property, or was related to other similar bad acts. So creditors don’t object to the discharge of their debts simply because most of the time no such facts exist.

2. Even within such narrow grounds, relatively common situations such as bounced checks or the use of credit not long before filing bankruptcy can be seen as fraudulent, so creditors can object to these kinds of debts. But even in these situations, creditors often do not bother to object because they decide it’s not worth “throwing good money after bad”—spending more money for their staff time and attorney fees in the hopes of first getting a bankruptcy judge to agree with them, AND then still needing to get you to repay the debt.

3. One of the reasons why sensible creditors decide not to object even when they think they might have the legal grounds to do so is that they risk being ordered to pay your attorney’s fees to defend against their objection. That can happen if the judge thinks that “the position of the creditor was not substantially justified.” So creditors risk not only paying for their own costs to object, but also paying for your costs in fighting the objection.

So that’s why most creditors just write off the debt and move on.

But there ARE two exceptions.

1. Leverage: If a creditor thinks it has a decent case against you—such as with a string of bounced checks or a debt incurred shortly before the bankruptcy was filed—it may well object to the discharge of the debt knowing that YOU can’t or don’t want to pay attorney fees in fighting it, EVEN if you have a decent defense. So they’ll raise the issue in the hopes of forcing you to enter into a settlement quickly.

2. Axe to grind: If you have someone you owe money to who is simply very mad at you, so that your bankruptcy filing really aggravated him or her, then this creditor might be looking for an excuse to hurt you back. Ex-spouses and ex-business partners are the most common. Irrational anger by those types, not reined in by the financial realities, probably causes the messiest objections.

To reduce any anxiety you have about any of this, talk it over thoroughly with your attorney. If you have any concern about how you incurred any of your debts, or if someone has threatened you with any trouble if file bankruptcy, lay it all out. Often, your fear will not be justified. And if there are potential problems, being up-front about it may enable your attorney help reduce the risks.

A final bit of good news: creditors have a very limited time to raise objections: generally 60 days after the Meeting of Creditors. So, if whatever assurances given by your attorney still doesn’t stop you from worrying in the meantime, you’ll at least know that you can stop worrying after that date.

/by

When Chapter 7s Are Not So Simple

The goal of most Chapter 7 cases is to get in and get out—file the petition, go to a simple 10-minute hearing with your attorney a month later, and two months later get your debts written off. Mission accomplished, end of story. And usually that’s how it goes. So when it doesn’t go that way, why not?

Four main kinds of problems can happen:

1. Income:  Under the “means test,” If you made or received too much money in the 6 full calendar months before your Chapter 7 case is filed, you can be disqualified from Chapter 7. As a result you can be forced instead into a 3-to-5 year Chapter 13 case, or have your case be dismissed altogether—thrown out of court. These results can sometimes be avoided by careful timing of your case filing, or by making changed to your income beforehand, or if necessary by a proactive filing under Chapter 13. Or sometimes it’s worth fighting to stay in Chapter 7 by showing that it is not an “abuse” to do so.

2. Assets:  In Chapter 7, if you have an asset which is not “exempt” (protected), the Chapter 7 trustee will be entitled to take and sell that asset, and pay the proceeds to the creditors. You might be happy to surrender a particular asset you don’t need in return for the discharge of your debts, in particular if the trustee is going use the proceeds in part to pay a debt that you want paid, such as a child support arrearage or an income tax obligation. But instead you may not want to surrender that asset, either because you think it is worth less than the trustee thinks or you believe it fits within an exemption. Or you may simply want to pay off the trustee for the privilege of keeping that asset. In all these “asset” scenarios, there are complications not present in an undisputed “no asset” case.

3. Creditor Challenges to Discharge if a Debt:  Creditors have the limited right to raise objections to the discharge of their individual debts, on grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, theft, intentional injury to person or property, and similar bad acts. In most circumstances the creditor must raise such objections within about three months of the filing of your Chapter 7 case. So once that deadline passes you no longer need to worry about this, as long as that creditor got appropriate notice of your case.

4. Trustee Challenges to Discharge of Any Debts:  If you do not disclose all your assets or fail to answer other questions accurately, either in writing or orally at the hearing with the trustee, or if you fail to cooperate with the trustee’s investigation of your financial circumstances, you could possibly lose the ability to discharge any of your debts. The bankruptcy system is still largely, believe it or not, an honor system—it relies on the honesty and accuracy of debtors (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, of creditors). So the system is quite harsh towards those who abuse the system by trying to hide the ball.

To repeat: most of the time, Chapter 7s are straightforward. No surprises. That’s especially true if you have been completely honest and thorough with your attorney during your meetings and through the information and documents you’ve provided. In Chapter 7 cases for my clients, my job is to have those cases run smoothly. I do that by carefully reviewing my clients’ circumstances to make sure that there is nothing troublesome, and if there is, to address it in advance in the best way possible. That way we will have a smooth case, or at least my clients will know in advance the risks involved. So, be honest and thorough with your attorney, to greatly up the odds of having a simple Chapter 7 case.

/by